150 years ago, John Stuart Mill denounced the tyrannical hold of public morality on the life of individuals and asserted that the principle of harm to others constituted the sole criterion under which the State may legitimately interfere with individual liberties. A century later, in response to the Wolfenden report, Lord Devlin developed a version of the legal moralism thesis which supported the criminal prohibition of homosexual practices made in private between consenting adults. This thesis of legal moralism has been widely criticized. According to two of the most influent legal philosophers and theorists of the twentieth century, Herbert L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, the legitimate role of community values in the justification of coercive intervention of the State in the lives of individuals must be determined according to the principles of critical morality. These philosophical debates have profoundly influenced the judicial discourse in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions rendered since the entrenchment of the Charter show two trends in the interpretation and application of the harm principle in the examination of the legitimacy of the legislative objectives at the first stage of the Oakes test. According to the first trend, that often legitimizes judicial activism, the justification of an infringement must rely on the demonstration of a prejudice to values officially recognized. According to the second trend, which favours deference towards the legislator's moral choices, the harm principle is not a requisite: The existence of objective moral considerations suffices.